Send to

Choose Destination
Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2016 Oct;13(5):230-236.

Right Ventricular Versus Biventricular Pacing for Heart Failure and Atrioventricular Block.

Author information

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Clinical and Translational Research Center, University at Buffalo, 875 Ellicott Street, Suite 7030, Buffalo, NY, 14203, USA.
Department of Medicine, Buffalo General Medical Center, University at Buffalo, D2-76, 100 High Street, Buffalo, NY, 14203, USA.


The use of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is well accepted as an important option for the treatment of patients with systolic heart failure and prolonged QRS duration. CRT for patients with narrow QRS complexes is reserved for patients who are undergoing implantation of new or replacement pacemakers or implantable cardioverter defibrillators with an anticipated significant requirement for ventricular pacing. The Biventricular versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Heart Failure Patients with Atrioventricular Block (BLOCK HF) Trial examined the role of CRT in heart failure patients with atrioventricular block and demonstrated significantly better outcomes with CRT compared to right ventricular pacing. On the other hand, conflicting preliminary data were reported by the Biventricular Pacing for Atrioventricular Block to Prevent Cardiac Desynchronization (BioPace) Trial investigators. In this review, we will discuss the adverse consequences of chronic right ventricular pacing, the options of alternate pacing sites in the right ventricle versus biventricular pacing, and the findings from the BLOCK HF Trial as well as the preliminary data from the BioPace Trial. Our goal is to explore the role of biventricular pacing in patients with atrioventricular block.


Atrioventricular block; BLOCK HF; Cardiac resynchronization therapy; Heart failure; Pacemakers

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center